National
LGBT bills unlikely to advance in Senate before Election Day
Advocates hope for markup on ENDA

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is unlikely to schedule floor time for pro-LGBT bills. (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
With a few months remaining in the 112th Congress — and a few weeks until lawmakers adjourn for August recess — advocates say the chances for advancing any pro-LGBT legislation even in the Democratic-controlled Senate are slim — at least before Election Day.
Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, expressed the sentiment that progress on pro-LGBT bills is unlikely in Congress anytime soon.
“Obviously the calendar is tight with only seven legislative weeks between now and the election,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Further, as summer rolls on, it begins to get harder and harder to get much done on Capitol Hill.”
Still, Cole-Schwartz said HRC will look to see what could be accomplished in the lame duck session and push to include LGBT provisions in any major tax bill or other omnibus spending package that comes to the floor.
Few had expected pro-LGBT legislation to move through the House while Republicans remain in control of the chamber, although some progress was made on bills in the Senate — including the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, the Domestic Partnership Benefits & Obligations Act, and the Respect for Marriage Act — leading to hopes that more progress could be made in at least one chamber of Congress.
On ENDA, which would bar job discrimination against LGBT people in the workplace, the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee held a historic hearing last month featuring the first-ever testimony from an openly transgender person before the Senate. Earlier in the Congress, the DPBO bill, which would extend health and pension benefits to partners of federal workers, and the RMA, which would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, were reported out of their respective committees of jurisdiction.
But even these bills may not advance. A Senate Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would schedule time for votes on these bills before Election Day, but left the door open for the possibility of them being tacked on to larger legislation coming to the floor.
“There is very little chance that any of these bills will be voted on in the Senate — as freestanding legislation – before the end of 2012,” the aide said. “However, it’s possible that one of the first three listed could be pushed by their sponsors as an amendment to another bill.”
A spokesperson for Reid’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on whether floor time would be scheduled for any pending pro-LGBT legislation for the remainder of this Congress.
Progress on one measure, the reauthorization of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act, which was intended as a vehicle for pro-LGBT legislation, has apparently reached an impasse. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), the sponsor of the Student Non-Discrimination Act, and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), had pledged to offer their anti-bullying bills as amendments to ESEA reauthorization when it came to the floor.
Cole-Schwartz said ESEA reauthorization “has stalled and is not expected to move further this year,” but advocates are looking for other options on the anti-bullying bills.
“While we had hoped it to be a vehicle for LGBT-inclusive schools legislation, we are working with allies to identify other options,” Cole-Schwartz said.
Shawn Gaylord, director of public policy for the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, echoed the sentiment that negotiations on ESEA reauthorization have stalled and “the general consensus in the education community is that any movement within this Congress is unlikely.”
“ESEA is the vehicle that will most likely move both the Safe Schools Improvement Act and Student Non Discrimination Act,” Gaylord said. “However, without any momentum for reauthorization, it’s unlikely that either of those bills will reach the floor of the House or Senate. GLSEN is continuing to build support for the bills among members so that we’re in a stronger position if ESEA moves in the next Congress.”
It’s on ENDA where advocates are still optimistic about the prospects of at least a markup for the legislation — although the proper strategy for advancing the bill is in dispute among some groups.
LGBT advocates have been calling for a markup of ENDA for months at the same time they previously called for a Senate hearing on the legislation. Cole-Schwartz said HRC is “pushing hard to have an ENDA markup in the HELP committee” as a follow-up to the hearing.
A spokesperson for the HELP committee, which is chaired by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), didn’t respond to a request for comment on any updates to plans to hold a markup on ENDA.
Tico Almeida, president of Freedom to Work, has been pushing for a Senate floor vote on ENDA this summer regardless of whether or not the committee first holds a markup of the legislation. While acknowledging the chances of a vote before August recess remain slim, Almeida said a floor vote on ENDA before the end of this year could still happen.
“I think there is a real possibility that ENDA will get a full Senate vote in September or in a lame duck [session], if LGBT groups make a strong effort to push for that,” Almeida said. “We are fortunate that Sen. [Mark] Kirk and Sen. [Jeff] Merkley are strongly pushing for it, and I think Sen. Harkin’s committee staff is very engaged in determining how to most strategically move the bill forward and that might mean skipping markup and going straight to the floor.”
Almeida said the timing of this vote demonstrates there should no problem holding a vote on the legislation before Election Day and Reid can live up to his promise in 2009 that a Senate vote on ENDA can happen soon.
“ENDA’s first and only full Senate vote was in September 1996 — just weeks before a presidential election — so nobody should use this year’s election as an excuse to further delay a vote that Senator Reid promised three years ago would be coming ‘soon,'” Almeida said. “Voters deserve to know whether our representatives support LGBT Americans’ freedom to work without discrimination. By bringing ENDA to the floor before the election, voters in key Senate races in places like Massachusetts and Nevada will finally learn where Senators [Scott] Brown and [Dean] Heller stand.”
But other groups are saying the markup needs to happen before the floor vote. HRC’s Cole-Schwartz said “a successful markup is an important step” on ENDA as part of the strategy for the bill, which includes securing 60 votes beforehand to avoid a filibuster and achieving a successful vote.
“Building a strong legislative history for any piece of legislation is important,” Cole-Schwartz said. “Given that neither the House nor the Senate has ever marked up the inclusive bill, we believe a markup has two major benefits: one, it removes a procedural objection that some senators would likely use to object to floor consideration and two, it creates a more complete and solid legislative record should the law ever be challenged in court.”
Almeida insisted that any technical changes that are necessary for ENDA can be done on the Senate floor and the legislation — such as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal — has gone to the Senate floor prior to markup.
“Senate rules allow a bill to skip markup, and it may be the most strategic thing to go directly to the floor,” Almeida said. “Freedom to Work would support that strategic option, if that’s what Harkin, Merkley and Kirk think is best.”
The White House
Trump tells Fox News he won the ‘gay vote’ — but polls tell a different story
Trump falsely claims LGBTQ support on Fox despite polling showing overwhelming opposition.
President Donald Trump claimed he won the “gay vote” in 2024, despite evidence showing otherwise.
While appearing by phone on Fox News’s panel show “The Five” on Thursday, Trump falsely claimed he performed particularly well among gay voters while discussing the ongoing war in Iran — a conflict he initiated without formal congressional approval.
“Now I think I did very well with the gay vote, OK? I even played the gay national anthem as my walk-off, OK?” Trump said on air.
“And I think it probably helped me. But I did great. No Republican’s ever gotten the gay vote like I did and I’m very proud of it, I think it’s great. Perhaps it’s because I’m from New York City, I don’t know…”
His claim contradicts 2024 polling from NBC News, which found that the GOP presidential ticket captured fewer than 1 in 5 LGBTQ male voters — a figure that may also include bisexual and transgender men. Trump’s support among LGBTQ female voters was even lower, at just 8%.
White LGBTQ voters favored Vice President Kamala Harris over Trump by a margin of 82% to 16%, while LGBTQ voters of color backed Harris by an even wider 91% to 5%.
Trump also used the appearance to criticize “Gays for Palestine,” saying: “Look at ‘Gays for Palestine’… they kill gays, they kill them instantly, they throw them off buildings, and I’m saying, ‘Who are the gays for Palestine?’”
He further pointed to his campaign’s use of the song “Y.M.C.A.” by the Village People — which he has repeatedly described as a “gay national anthem” — noting that it was frequently used as a walk-off song at rallies, as an indication that he and his campaign were supported by the gay community. The track, long associated with camp and hyper-masculine gay imagery, became a staple of Trump campaign events.
The Village People were later booked to perform at Turning Point USA’s inaugural ball celebrating Trump’s second inauguration. Lead singer Victor Willis previously criticized Trump’s use of the song dating back to 2020 and considered legal action to block it, but ultimately said there was “not much he can do about it.” He later acknowledged the renewed exposure was “beneficial” and “good for business,” boosting the song’s popularity and chart performance.
Despite Trump’s claims of strong support from gay voters, polling has consistently shown otherwise — even as several prominent gay men have held roles in or around his orbit, sometimes dubbed the “A-gays.” These include Richard Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center and Special Presidential Envoy for Special Missions; Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent; Under Secretary of State Jacob Helberg; Department of Energy official Charles T. Moran; and longtime supporter Peter Thiel, co-founder and CEO of Palantir.
His efforts to portray himself as aligned with the gay community stand in conflict with policies advanced under his leadership. These include removing LGBTQ-related data from State Department reports, attempting to narrowly redefine gender identity in federal policy, restricting access to gender-affirming health care, and rolling back anti-discrimination protections. His administration also rescinded initiatives focused on LGBTQ health equity, data collection, and nondiscrimination in health care and education — moves advocates say contribute to stigma and worsen mental health outcomes.
Additionally, some HIV programs and community health centers have lost funding from the federal government after supporting initiatives inclusive of transgender people as a direct result of Trump-Vance policies.
National
Anti-trans visa ruling echoes Nazi regime destroying trans documents
Trump administration escalates attacks on queer community
The Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security earlier this month released its third Red Flag Alert for the United States about the Trump administration’s anti-trans legislation. As the Lemkin Institute shared in the press release, “the Administration has moved from identifying transgender people as as threat to the family and to the nation’s military prowess to claiming that transgender people constitute a cosmic threat to the spiritual health of the nation and the great direct threat to the US national security in the world.”
The news came the same day that the State Department issued a new rule, “Enhancing Vetting and Combatting Fraud in the Immigrant Visa Program.” Under this new guidance, all visa applicants are required to disclose their “biological sex at birth” during all stages of the process, “even if that differs from the sex listed on the applicant’s foreign passport or identifying documentation.”
This rule also orders that applicants to the green card lottery program share their passport information, so in knowingly collecting passport information that the agency knows will not match a person’s biological sex at birth, it’s creating grounds to deny trans peoples’ biases on the basis of “fraud,” Aleksandra Vaca of Transitics explains.
As is written in the new ruling, “the Department is replacing ‘gender’ with ‘sex’ in accordance with E.O. 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which provides that the term ‘sex’ shall refer to an individual’s sex at birth. Only male and female sex options are available for entrants completing the Diversity Visa entry form.”
Along with outright denying the existence of nonbinary, genderqueer and gender expansive people, this policy creates a precedence for trans people to be stripped of their visas and deported because under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i), any foreigner found to have obtained or possess a visa “by fraud or willfully misrepresenting a material fact” will have their visa revoked and face deportation.
By requesting information on “biological sex at birth,” the State Department is forcing a mismatch between documents and enabling officials to accuse trans, nonbinary, and gender expansive immigrants of fraud. Thus, trans and nonbinary immigrants can have their visas revoked and can be deported, and information gathered from immigrants during the visa request process can be added to federal databases and used by immigration authorities, including ICE agents.
With the Supreme Court’s decision this past year allowing ICE officers to use racial profiling, Vaca argues that “now, The Trump administration has given ICE the reason it needs. Under this rule, ICE agents now have the enforcement rationale to assert that trans people–especially those belonging to racial minority groups–are more likely than cis people to have ‘misrepresented’ themselves during the visa process, and therefore, are more likely to enter the country ‘unlawfully.’”
This would enable ICE agents to target trans individuals specifically for being trans. If the goal of this were unclear, a day later the Trump administration released its statement for Women’s History Month 2026, writing that “we are keeping men out of women’s sports, enforcing Title IX as it was originally written and ensuring colleges preserve–and, where possible, expand–scholarships and roster opportunities for female athletes. We are restoring public safety and upholding the rule of law in every city so women, children, and families can feel safe and secure.”
And this is not the first time that ICE has targeted and harmed trans and nonbinary immigrants. Last June, Vera reported that ICE is not including trans people in detection in their public reports, and back in 2020, AFSC reported that trans people held in ICE detention faced “dreadful, ugly” conditions.
While it seems like a new development in Trump’s anti-trans escalation, it echoes a deeply upsetting history of denying and destroying transgender people’s documents following members of the Nazi party seizing power in 1933.
In the early 20th century, Weimar, Germany was an epicenter for gender affirming care with Maganus Hirschfeld’s Institute for Sexual Science. One of the first book burnings of the rising Nazi regime destroyed the Institute’s extensive clinical records and library on trans health and history by Nazi students and stormtroopers. In doing so, the Nazis effectively destroyed the world’s first trans health clinic and one of the richest and most comprehensive collective of information about trans healthcare.
Similarly, the Nazi government invalidated or refused to recognize what was called “transvestite passes,” or passing certificates that allowed trans people to avoid arrest under Paragraph 175 which prohibited cross-dressing. During the Weimar Republic — the regime that preceded the Third Reich — recognized and affirmed the identities of trans people (in limited ways) with specific documentation that helped prevent them from arrest. Invalidating and disregarding these passes allowed police and Nazi officials to target trans people and harass, extort and arrest them, and the record of passes themselves helped officials target trans people.
The changes to visa guidelines — alongside Kansas’s move to revoke trans drivers’ licenses last month — is reflective of this escalation of violence against trans people during the Nazi’s rise to power, which scholars like Dr. Laurie Marhoefer is just beginning to uncover. And along with the revocation of identification documents this past week, a recent Fourth Circuit Court ruled that states can deny Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming surgery.
The Fourth Circuit Court decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s decision in Skrmetti, which ruled that bans on gender affirming healthcare for young people are constitutional. This ruling extends this ban to include adult healthcare bans, allowing West Virginia’s exclusion of Medicaid coverage for adult gender affirming healthcare to take full effect. Even more upsetting was what the ruling itself said, calling gender affirming healthcare “dangerous.”
As was written in the Fourth Circuit Opinion, “it’s not irrational for a legislature to encourage citizens ‘to appreciate their sex’ and not ‘become disdainful of their sex’ by refusing to fund experimental procedures that may have the opposite effect.”
In reality, what this ruling and the opinion reflect, is the next step in government regulation and oversight over marginalized peoples’ bodies. From the overturn of Roe v. Wade, which removed federal protection of access to abortion, this next step represents the denial of people’s access to vital, lifesaving care–and to be clear, gender affirming care is not just for trans, nonbinary, and intersex people. It’s a dangerous escalation and one that echoes previous violence against trans people under fascist regimes; the Lemkin Institute is right to raise concern.
Pennsylvania
Pa. House passes bill to codify marriage equality in state law
Governor supports gay state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta’s measure
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill that would codify marriage equality in state law.
House Bill 1800 passed by a 127-72 vote margin. Twenty-six Republicans voted for the measure.
The Republican-controlled Pennsylvania Senate will now consider the bill that state Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), who is the first openly gay person of color elected to the state’s General Assembly, introduced. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro supports the measure.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love,” said Shapiro on Wednesday. “Today, the House has stepped up to protect that right.”
BREAKING: The Pennsylvania House just passed @RepKenyatta's bill to codify marriage equality into law in PA — and they did it with broad bipartisan support.
— Governor Josh Shapiro (@GovernorShapiro) March 25, 2026
Here in Pennsylvania, we believe in your freedom to marry who you love. Today, the House has stepped up to protect that…
-
Photos4 days agoPHOTOS: Capital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary
-
Poland4 days agoPolish court rules country must recognize same-sex marriages from EU states
-
District of Columbia4 days agoCapital Stonewall Democrats 50th anniversary gala draws sold out crowd
-
District of Columbia3 days agoTrans Day of Visibility events planned
